IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-00.txt

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Thu, 11 March 2021 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bemasc@google.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1AD3A1154 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:41:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IkA1PPKDLewe for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73E193A1157 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id j2so2372929wrx.9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:41:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KGpxw1Mnv027hb73CZcTggBkuM1RITTL0ekKHGuhivg=; b=KdWO4GizyP7eYW8UPuscUvYEtClzngx35RDm8R6jDQyBrLwCLV6mM8OwxHMN0RGlWp wkmwz2hZo0vmSP/g7Xj7TG7dNBo6DfV1hnMV8mnOVwIDTczdt+AdzKud+Riya7gZ3eA1 oc9G7uQghMDGZJFJBPh/+nzSiT0W5U0vIOefgYs9VLjqZ2LgOpjuWeChwqLP4RrdSPNc gy5bci+u1OR1xEVFC3CvQIyf++koipxnWbaYNEwOiM/FSzDQLUoubcrm2FIa1WVQyY5u 8HZP4XJM7c/Zu1HbVONGgiUm0NuidXKJ9smQkOHZKZcKrdg5qTrCHpd5zFo2xY8zA7zS qL1g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KGpxw1Mnv027hb73CZcTggBkuM1RITTL0ekKHGuhivg=; b=Mm3faFncUy1XU5UAT9fNVrt+gYidEgGVKB+jX5W3EWP2hSPAEDTMknoTWyPqQ7B3NX 4CHdOrep2Xazb2Ml9woXgVT+KRCaqpNJdZZBaintK13oItMmntrP8Hc+BJzFwbucKuV/ bBPBCTJ7Sj6j2JDo1zQoIDsqkxx1MlGdoF423gArAkTWusHuhGOQsB2YDvtlxQliBfCZ xuD6slQPjTQEtDd3grblpNhknj9bHuQ+Q+39KiIbo86/rNcKWvkb8/cjzuBY7w61QoaW HSr5f1a7rQ0JW7SNZC126mCMtA5Py0CiibbodrALO01BWzGofk41mH0R0b31qSexBFG2 m3Gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bwihhM595rn0VK+cop4oDYo7/A3C6JGdQJ6i+jlv86UdU+Ry7 N9J7h3QcWmJ/TkBqncLOnf/o2V0htxemiLML5kV/WA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPPcu4bM6A0r55UzBOQhYoT31p18zbrWrrdDTSeRAYgu+5y7vvQtZKc9b/0+bu/m29TenXHHn6d6ynuyb859k=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4d09:: with SMTP id z9mr9106301wrt.426.1615477268225; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:41:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161136172628.1734.2217352338863129898@ietfa.amsl.com> <91d65727-5011-4ce7-b283-5b72dab57ec0@nic.cz> <CC2214C8-5F02-4276-ABE6-5D65BB793258@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <CC2214C8-5F02-4276-ABE6-5D65BB793258@icann.org>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:40:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsBmhxfOvMfF4YacSfdxKZgzB_nLtug6gC5-97u9M_ty5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Cc: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="000000000000bb7b2405bd449ce1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wc2ldl9tvzRib1P66cl2VmGUlac>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 15:41:16 -0000

I agree with Vladimir: bitflags in an octet are totally different from
algorithm registrations.  I don't think they should have the same
registration policy.

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:39 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
wrote:

> On Mar 11, 2021, at 2:41 AM, Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm quite surprised that the IANA section of the draft includes that
> registering *flags* is also changed from "Standards Action" to "RFC
> Required".  While the algorithm space is rather large, that certainly
> doesn't apply to the NSEC3 and NSEC3PARAM flags (only 7 remain free).
> >
>
> The size of the namespace isn't all that relevant in that, for any
> namespace, if it is filling up "too fast", one can quickly change the
> requirements to be more stringent. I'm pretty sure that has happened in the
> thousands of IANA registries, but the last time I checked, it happened
> "very, very rarely".
>
> As I said in the meeting, none of these changes will happen without the WG
> being alerted. Consistency of registration is more important than trying to
> predict rare events in the future.
>
> --Paul Hoffman_______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email